4.  The applicants were born in 1954, 1954 and 1978 respectively and live in Tunceli and Istanbul respectively.
5.  The first and the second applicants’ son and the third applicant’s brother, Önder Babat, was a fourth-year student at the Law Faculty of Istanbul University. Önder Babat had been the subject of disciplinary investigations at the University and at the time of the events had criminal proceedings pending against him for participating in an illegal demonstration. The applicants maintained that he was Kurdish, Alawite, and had strong left-wing political views.
6.  According to the witness statements given to the public prosecutor on 22 March 2004 by Mr E.Ö., Mr B.Y. and Ms P.A., the events unfolded as follows: On 3 March 2004 Önder Babat and his three friends went to watch a documentary film at the French Cultural Centre at Istiklal Street in Taksim, Istanbul. Afterwards they visited the office of the Devrimci Hareket Dergisi (Revolutionary Movement Magazine), a magazine with left-wing political views located in Imam Adnan Street right next to Istiklal Street. Immediately after they left the office, at approximately 6.50 p.m., Önder Babat suddenly collapsed in the street bleeding heavily from the head. His friends, with the help of other people, took him to Taksim Ilkyardım Hospital where Önder Babat died. He was twenty-five years old.
7.  According to a report drafted by two police officers and signed by Mr B.Y., one of Önder Babat’s friends, the police received information about the incident at 7.20 p.m. and arrived at Taksim Ilkyardım Hospital where, after taking oral statements from Önder Babat’s friends, the police, with Mr B.Y., returned to the scene of the incident. They noted blood trails on the ground. The police were told by people in the vicinity that they had not witnessed anything unusual and that the injured person had been taken to the hospital by his friends.
8.  At approximately 8.10 p.m. a second group of police officers from the Beyoğlu police headquarters arrived at the scene of the incident to make a preliminary investigation on behalf of the public prosecutor, who had been notified of the incident by telephone. A sketch was made of the scene of incident and seven sets of photographs were taken. The police noted a 10 x 10 cm stone on the floor approximately 1.80 metres from the blood trail. They considered that the stone might have caused his death by falling on his head from one of the surrounding buildings. They collected the stone and blood samples for the criminal laboratory. In the report drafted by the police the weapon is stated as unidentified. The police left the scene at 9.40 p.m. The officers in charge of the preliminary investigations issued an incident report. It was noted in this report that a hole of 5 cm x 5 cm was found on the upper left side of Önder Babat’s head and an ecchymotic lesion of 2 cm was observed around his right eyebrow.
9.  On the same date between 8.00 p.m. and 8.40 p.m. officers from the Beyoğlu police headquarters took statements from Önder Babat’s three friends who had been with him at the time of the incident and from a waiter who worked at a nearby café. They all affirmed that they had no idea what had caused Önder Babat’s injuries.
10.  On 4 March 2004 at 11.30 a.m. Önder Babat’s cousin gave a statement to officers from the Beyoğlu police headquarters, where he stated that Önder Babat did not have any enemies.
11.  On the same day a post-mortem examination was carried out on Önder Babat’s body. The doctor concluded that an autopsy had to be carried out to determine the cause of death.
12.  On the same date an autopsy was carried out on Önder Babat’s body on the orders of the Beyoğlu public prosecutor. In the autopsy report drafted on 1 April 2004 and signed by four doctors from the Forensic Medicine Institute, a bullet entry hole was observed on the left front parietal region and a 9 mm calibre cartridge was found in the right cerebellum. The doctors indicated that the cause of death was a fracture of the cranium and cerebral haemorrhage due to the gunshot wound, and that the gun had been fired at long range.
13.  On 8 March 2004 the Istanbul provincial criminal police laboratory carried out a ballistic examination of the cartridge found in Önder Babat’s head. The experts concluded that the bullet had been fired from a 9 mm Parabellum-type pistol.
14.  On 9 March 2004 the police superintendent (Başkomiser) at the Beyoğlu police headquarters informed the Beyoğlu public prosecutor that the cartridge could not be matched with bullets fired from other weapons which had been used in previous criminal incidents involving unknown perpetrators, and that since the bullet was not deformed it was highly unlikely that it had ricocheted off any other target.
15.  On 22 March 2004 the public prosecutor heard evidence from Mr E.Ö., Mr B.Y. and Ms P.A. Two of them stated that they had heard a sound which they considered to be probably the sound of Önder Babat’s collapse on the street but that they had not heard any gunshots.
16.  On 6 May 2004 the Beyoğlu public prosecutor put a question to the Forensic Medicine Institute as to whether the findings of the autopsy report could shed light on the angle and the distance of the shot.
17.  On 24 September 2004 the Forensic Medicine Institute drafted a report concerning the public prosecutor’s question, in which they declared that the shot had been fired from a long distance, namely further than 35‑40 cm. They did not, however, state an opinion as to the angle from which the shot had been fired, as such a finding was medically impossible due to the mobile nature of the target in question.
18.  In the meantime, on 12 July 2004 the applicants lodged an application with the Beyoğlu public prosecutor. They claimed that they had received an anonymous call from a police officer who had alleged that during the ballistic examination carried out at the criminal police laboratory the cartridge found in Önder Babat’s head had been discovered to have been defaced and scraped in an attempt to render the weapon used in the incident unidentifiable. These findings had not however been included in the ballistic report. The applicants requested an in-depth investigation regarding this allegation.
19.  On 15 December 2004 the Beyoğlu public prosecutor ordered the Forensic Medicine Institute to examine the cartridge in accordance with the applicants’ request.
20.  On 5 January 2005 the Forensic Medicine Institute issued a report where they held that the microscopic examination of the cartridge had not revealed any traces of defacement or scrapings as alleged by the applicants.
21.  In the meantime, on 3 August 2004 the applicants lodged a criminal complaint with the Beyoğlu public prosecutor against the officials carrying out the preliminary investigation into Önder Babat’s death, and requested that the persons responsible be charged with breach of duty. The applicants claimed in particular that the authorities had attempted to cover up the real cause of Önder Babat’s death by insisting that the death had been caused by a stone that fell on his head, that they had not drawn up a proper sketch plan of the scene of the incident, and that they had not sought witness statements from, or questioned persons in the vicinity of, the crime scene. They claimed that certain officials had even gone so far as to tell them that there was nothing suspicious in Önder Babat’s death which would necessitate informing the public prosecutor or which would require the performance of an autopsy. The applicants moreover alleged that the investigation had been limited to a comparative study with evidence in other “unknown perpetrator killings”, but no match had been attempted with any weaponry which had been recorded as being in the possession of the law enforcement officers or other licensed users.
22.  On 8 November 2004 the Beyoğlu public prosecutor, referring to the steps undertaken in the preliminary investigation and to the fact that the investigation was ongoing, issued a decision not to prosecute (takipsizlik kararı) due to a lack of evidence indicating a breach of duty.
23.  On 24 December 2004 the applicants objected to the public prosecutor’s decision.
24.  On 2 February 2005 the Istanbul Assize Court rejected the applicants’ objection.
25.  On 17 March 2005 the Beyoğlu public prosecutor instructed the Beyoğlu police headquarters to pursue its investigation and to arrest the suspects or, if it was unable to do so, to issue a progress report every three months.
26.  According to the information in the case file, the investigation into Önder Babat’s death is still pending. The case file reveals much correspondence between the prosecutor and the police regarding the investigation.